If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Scientists and engineers are very different types, though both are generally good at math and logic. Engineers have a greater tendency to carry on long discussions explaining why some approach or idea is wrong, ludicrous, silly, or otherwise not worthy of serious thought. Right Acebird?

Oh wait, I'm about to get an engineering degree myself. I'll admit I have some of the same tendencies....

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Originally Posted by cerezha

I guess so

I guess that I gave you too much credit for saying that the images that you posted were yours. I did a web search for the tag (lower right corner) in that scary looking calculus image that you posted (FourierTransformMod_gr_52.gif) and got several hits that were the identical image.

You need to remove the tags from stock images that you borrow from the internet. Plagiarism is not the hallmark of a scientist or a teacher.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Posting in this thread is rather like stepping in between children throwing rocks at each other. Please stop trying to smear each other's professional reputations. I'm sure you're all well qualified in your respective careers.

I originally tried to perfect the visualization, mainly as a learning exercise to examine the toxicity of neonics. I discovered that they are more toxic than I originally thought, though of course this doesn't mean much on its own. As Nabber so cynically (though accurately) pointed out, we need to consider exposure pathways, degradation times, etc. Then I tried to steer the discussion toward solutions, ways that we might be able to minimize contact between neonics and bees without taking a very human-safe and effective pesticide away from farmers. That was thoroughly ignored by the rock-throwers.

Go on and fight if you will, I'm bowing out. I'll come back when the rocks stop flying.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Fourier transform is our very common tool and it could be illustrated by formula. Formula itself is a public domain. Image is not - thus I left all tags to trace the image to its original site. I did not claim that this is my image. You should notice that all other images have tags also. I do not understand,what is your point? Do you want to compromise my scientific credentials - luckily to me it is not in your power, I hope.
The purpose of all images was to illustrate the visualization approach.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

I'm not qualified to make comments on the scientific lingo being thrown around in this thread, but I am equipped with a "civility meter" making me qualified to comment on words used in some posts. Let's stop with the underhand remarks.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees

...I do notice a dichotomy between your assertion that neonics don't metabolize and scientific studies that claim they do.

I guess, it depends from the definition. Do you use "metabolize" in the sense that chemical disappeared from the bloodstream (common definition in human physiology), in case of bees, lymph ? From this prospective, the chemical disappears from the lyph and accumulates on neurons. Once attached to the receptor, it may not be destroyed by ordinary biochemistry. So, the chemical leave the body fluids and in this sense - disappears. But in reality it accumulates in other body parts, brain in particular. This accumulation is difficult to measure because it is happened at molecular level and our equipment is not sensitive enough.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Originally Posted by Nabber86

...Tell me serg how many hundreds of thousands of tons of solvent contaminated soil have you cleaned up, or millions of gallons of groundwater? How many water treatment plants have you designed and operated?...

I have full respect to your efforts to keep our environment clean. But I think,the problem is that we are at different sides of the barricade: you manipulates thousands of tons and I manipulate individual atoms, molecules and cells. My scale is "nano". I guess, it is difficult to believe that there is something substantial on nano-level if you are preoccupied with all these thousands tons. Please, have all my respect for your hard work to protect the environment at your level.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees

Sergey,
you've mentioned that Neonic is the 'evil' pesticide. If you had your way, what pesticide would you replace it with that is less 'evil'?

Well, I mean that the mechanism of action is evil. Forgive my poor English: "keep in mind that evil of neonics is their mechanism of action - they irreversibly binds to receptor - thus, they do not metabolize and just accumulate. In such situation, it is very difficult to determine the "dosage" because even sublethal amount may cause a problem."

As for replacement with something less evil. I could refer you to the story I read in NY Times:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/sc...?src=recg&_r=0
"Generations of Eastern European housewives doing battle against bedbugs spread bean leaves around the floor of an infested room at night. In the morning, the leaves would be covered with bedbugs that had somehow been trapped there. The leaves, and the pests, were collected and burned — by the pound, in extreme infestations. " Using chemicals to kill insects is a dead end because, insects have tremendous plasticity and very quickly adapt to most horrible stuff including DDT etc. In this battle - we always losers. Look at the mites - how many chemicals are ineffective with mites these days? Look at antibiotics - we have bugs now, who is not sensitive to ANY antibiotic. Ironically, the bugs, which are not treated by chemicals (antibiotics) - now, successfully treated with propolis.

My personal way - I do not use chemicals in my garden and on my bees. I have fruits, vegetables, honey - everything withing tiny piece of land in Santa Monica. The rest we got from the local farmers market. But, it does not mean that my plants and bees are doing well by magic. They have proper nutrition, care and protected from stress. It pays back with good crop if there is no interference from "chemical" people.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees

so basically you are saying that all pesticides are evil and that the United States should be completely pesticide free.

No, I am not saying so. But strong "organic" movement shows that many consumers are interested in organic food, which essentially is pesticide-free. So, pesticide-free is already happening at substantial scale.

Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees

since that is not going to happen, isn't the next best thing to use a pesticide that is designed to target invertebrates (and spare vertebrates)?

Why? Pest-icide, it is not only against insects. Orange oil is registered EPA pesticide to repel cats and dogs. "Targeting" is flashy word - there are massive evidence on neonics effect on vertebrates nervous system (ooops). Than - what is the point in targeting if they missed? In my opinion, the real problem for US is the absence of reliable mechanism of public health and environmental protection. Wild and domesticated species needs to be under protection as well. Than,may be we would not need nabber to move million tons of contaminated soil...

Last edited by cerezha; 04-12-2013 at 02:40 PM.
Reason: replace lit on evidence

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Originally Posted by cerezha

No, I am not saying so. But strong "organic" movement shows that many consumers are interested in organic food, which essentially is pesticide-free.

I think most of the 'organic' growth comes from marketing and a perception which often does not match reality. The idea that 'organic' is pesticide free is false. There are 'organic' approved pesticides.

'Organic' products are marketed as a 'value-added' product so there is the potential for more profit throughout the marketing stream.

I think locally, sustainably produced food is closer to what many percieve 'organic' food.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

On the organic/green scale neonics are far better for the environment than earlier pesticides such as organochlorine and organophosphate compounds. Ah, the good all days when you could indiscriminately saturate thousands upon thousands of acres with deadly poisons; resulting in widespread contamination of sensitive ecological habitats, killing bald eagles, and harming farm workers. All thanks to the likes of DDT, endosulfan, chlordane, heptachlor, and toxaphene.

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Sergey,
that's great that you offer the solution of 'old ladies and sticks' to get rid of bed bugs. But how will that technique be used to quell the mass 'Stink bug' infestation, a non-native pest that has no native predators. This bug is literally decimates entire fields at a time (like locusts)!

When the starving masses of Americans come to your gate with pichforks demanding food (due to your callous idea of doing 'nothing' detroying America's supply of food), i suggest that you tell them that they can eat cake!

Re: Visulalizing 2 nanograms....i.e. 0.000000002 grams

Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees

....
When the starving masses of Americans come to your gate with pichforks demanding food (due to your callous idea of doing 'nothing' detroying America's supply of food), i suggest that you tell them that they can eat cake!

Well, I am sorry, nothing personal - but Americans need to eat 2x less to be less fat and healthier!